A Skeptical World Reacts to Bush Speech
U.S. audiences seemed receptive to President
Bush's State of the Union address last Tuesday. But
in much of the rest of the world, his words were
viewed as highly provocative. Below are excerpts
from commentary that appeared in the foreign
press. (Compiled by Gale Holland)
February 3, 2002
Los Angeles Times
E-mail story
ENGLAND
In George Bush's America, there's evidently little
room for a sense of noblesse oblige ....Though the
campaign against Al Qaeda has been brilliantly
destructive of appalling evil forces, it has far to go.
Bush's own account of the nightmares he's trying to
pre-empt makes that very clear. How can he hope
to do it solely through the might of American power
and intelligence? --By Hugo Young in The Guardian
President Bush's State of the Union address, the most powerful speech he has
delivered to America, should rightly be seen as an essay in fundamentalism. It
laid out the principles which he hopes will eventually transform American
culture and protect its society.... But in Bush's mistaken choice of Iran as a
target, his silence about Israel and his missionary call to propagate American
values, he risks leaving the United States standing very much alone on the
world stage ....
For a start, the idea of an "axis of evil" between three countries which are
barely speaking is nonsense.... While Bush made a vague reference in his
speech to working closely "with our coalition," he is entirely wrong if he thinks
there is a coalition for attacking Iran.
Nor, probably, is there for action against North Korea, or even Iraq. His
speech was striking for its lack of mention of the United Nations, or of [British
Prime Minister] Tony Blair. That supports other signs of a marked cooling off
in the transatlantic relationship since November. America's allies will also be
perturbed by the lack of any mention of Israel. The message is that America
will go it alone if it must.
--By Bronwen Maddor for the Times of London
IRAN
The fact is that although the U.S. forces have been trying for the past few
months to capture Saudi-born dissident Osama bin Laden, who is considered
by Washington to be the mastermind behind the Sept. 11 incidents, they have
so far failed to achieve this objective.Thus, to hide this failure, Bush needs to
raise a commotion over what he claims are threats from independent countries
like Iran or North Korea in order to divert U.S. public attention from the Bin
Laden issue ....The new Republican administration has not taken any effective
steps toward solving certain domestic problems facing the American people,
like the deepening economic recession. Rather, it has been allocating a great
portion of public funds for military purposes. Now, to counter rising public
objections and justify its militaristic policies, the U.S. president has to draw the
attention of the American public to some imaginary foreign threats ....Bush is
unlikely to succeed in covering up his failures on both the domestic and
international fronts by resorting to such cheap and demagogic tactics.
--Unsigned editorial in The Tehran Times
CANADA
The most worrisome thing about a U.S. foreign policy steered by the
perception that the world is divided between allies who support the war on
terrorism (Russia, Pakistan and Israel, for instance) and those who don't is
where it leads. Through the Bush lens, the bad guys have to be told to shape up
or look out. But what if there are more bad guys than realized, and what if they
don't shape up? Should they all be bombed into submission, as part of some
global campaign that lasts indefinitely? Or will a diplomatic approach somehow
have to be revived?
It will not be Bush but his successors who will likely have to answer that.
--Unsigned editorial in The Globe and Mail
TURKEY
The U.S. is pursuing a policy completely at odds with Turkey's strategic
interests regarding intervention in Iran and Northern Iraq ....In fact, the U.S.
and Britain would like to divide Iraq and form a puppet government in
Northern Iraq. The puppet government is ready with all its institutions, save a
proclamation.... Turkey, Syria and Iran are opposed to the division of Iraq, as
are Russia and China. Turkey's interests are not in line with those of the West
but with those of its regional neighbors.
--By Erol Manisali in Cumhuriyet
JORDAN
One of the reasons Bush's hawks are determined to strike soon is that Iraq is
rapidly emerging from the political isolation imposed on the country by the U.S.
since the 1991 Gulf War. The visits of Deputy Premier Tarik Aziz to Moscow
and Beijing at the end of January consecrated Iraq's reinstatement as a member
of the community of nations and should make it all the more difficult for the
Bush administration to resume assaults on Baghdad.
--By Michael Jansen in the Jordan Times
ISRAEL
Some of those who for years dismissed the possibility of America taking
effective action against rogue regimes will oppose the extended Bush Doctrine
as dangerous, imperialist, impossible, or all of the above. But it is not Bush who
is being over-ambitious.... On the contrary; it is our pre-Sept. 11 world that
was characterized by reckless complacency as the threats to the West grew
and grew. Bush is being bold, bolder than the world ... expected, but not
bolder than necessary.
--Unsigned editorial in the Jerusalem Post
SAUDI ARABIA
What Bush [said] on Tuesday night was that he was going to make America
safe from further attacks.... regardless of the cost. And he was still going to cut
[Americans'] taxes. So much good news must have made Americans sleep
better in their beds Tuesday night. But what about the rest of the world?
The Palestinians who listened to the address must be still wondering what the
president meant when he said, "America will lead by defending liberty and
justice because they are right and true and unchanging for all people
everywhere; no nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from
them."
They will have enough time to work out the relevance of these words to them
while facing Israeli tanks, bulldozers, closures and American harangues about
"Arafat not doing enough."
--Unsigned editorial in Arab News
PAKISTAN
A greater anomaly in Bush's speech is his unwillingness to differentiate between
terrorists and freedom fighters.... While terrorists are evil men whose targets
are innocent people, freedom fighters resist those robbing them of freedom.
Theirs is a noble struggle which is invariably crowned with success. In the case
of Palestine and Kashmir, the boot is on the other foot, for it is Israel and India
which have been guilty of state terrorism. Regrettably, the Bush speech
contains no censure of these two violators of human rights. Instead, it targets
Iran, Iraq and North Korea, none of which is in possession of someone else's
territory.
--Unsigned editorial in Dawn
IRELAND
A U.S. attack on [Iran, Iraq or North Korea] would gravely affect the
international coalition to fight terrorism. Without clear evidence, an express
mandate from the United Nations and the concurrence of its allies, any attack
would be a foolhardy and dangerous exercise in unilateralism. Bush should not
assume the successful military operation in Afghanistan legitimizes such an
escalation.
--Unsigned editorial in Irish Times
AUSTRALIA
The conservative political commentator Robert Novak, writing in the
Washington Post, observed that [Bush's] dramatic turn "effectively removed the
Enron scandal from the headlines." It also sent Mr. Bush's administration
scrambling. It has emerged that it had no broader policy in place to support the
new rhetoric.
--By Peter Hartcher in the Australian Financial Review
NORTH KOREA
U.S.-resident Korean journalist Kim Min Ung charged that Washington's
hostile policy toward North Korea stems from its ambition to gain global
supremacy by force. Commenting on the Bush administration's declaration of
this year as a year of war, he stated that U.S. strategy is essentially geared to
supporting its superpower hegemony by military strength. Referring to the U.S.
policy toward North Korea as hostile and aimed at stifling the latter, he said:
"The U.S. pressurizes North Korea to give in to its policy of hegemony, and
this is the way it wants the latter to change. That kind of change is not in the
least bit desirable in the eyes of our nation as a whole."
--Unsigned story in Pyongyang Times
INDONESIA
Overall, it was indeed a strong speech, but in our judgment it was also an
incomplete one. The rest of the world, especially the developing non-Western
countries, have a great interest in seeing that America should be successful in
achieving a respectable level of economic growth towards the end of this year.
Only a strong America can help the poorer parts of the world achieve a decent
level of living.... We do expect a strong and structured commitment from
Washington in overcoming the five major problems of the developing countries.
Namely, availability of potable water; production and distribution of electricity
affordable to all; construction of affordable housing; the eradication of major
public diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria and AIDS; and widespread public
education with an emphasis on mastering the basics of digital technology. To a
large degree, the improvement of the social-economic level of poor people
throughout the world is also an effective way of eliminating terrorism.
--Unsigned editorial in the Jakarta Post
INDIA
President Bush's State of the Union message is a declaration of war on
terrorism and he has backed it up with the largest increase in defense spending
in two decades. Against whom is this war? The speech indicates explicitly who
the enemy is and then obfuscates it with a lot of strategic deception rhetoric....
Bush speaks of a non-existent axis of Iraq, Iran and North Korea when he is
referring to another state which has armed itself with North Korean missiles
and has programs of weapons of mass destruction.
When President Bush talks of thousands of terrorists now outside Afghanistan,
he can only mean Pakistan.... There is only one war against terrorism. The
Bush speech makes it clear that Pakistan cannot pretend to be with the
international alliance against terrorism and permit thousands of Al Qaeda and
Taliban cadres to slip into Pakistan ....Unfortunately, Pakistan has deluded itself
that it can succeed with its duplicity, as it has over the past 50 years. Now
Gen. [Pervez] Musharraf and his corps commanders face a stark choice.
--By K. Subrahmanyam in the Times of India
latimes.com
t |
